1962: “Generations”

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jackal
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:16 am UTC

1962: “Generations”

Postby jackal » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:30 pm UTC

Image

Hover text: For awhile it looked like the Paperclip Machines would destroy us, since they wanted to turn the whole universe into paperclips, but they abruptly lost interest in paperclips the moment their parents’ generation got into making them, too.

Wow, 2:30 PM Eastern time and no thread for this comic yet? I was looking forward to reading the discussion…

And it was just earlier this week that I proudly claimed the title of “The Oregon Trail Generation” (actually, “Xennial,” but that’s such an ugly word). A little sad to see Randall ignoring that, even though he shares a birth year with me. Are we really millennials?? :o

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:38 pm UTC

What is that emoji in the nearest-future generation?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby pogrmman » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:43 pm UTC

As a young, entitled Millenial, whose sibling is in Generation (nail polish emoji (apparently unsupported by phpBB)), I enjoyed this one. I don’t necessarily agree with the classification of millenial as ending in 1999, just because I think that there is a difference between those who do remember 9/11 (I do, but it’s one of my earliest memories) and those who don’t (so basically anybody younger than me). Idk though — people around my age are really kind of transitional. Sure, cell phones were a thing when I was little, but I was almost in middle school when the iPhone came out. And it didn’t really get super wide adoption until after that.

On the comic, I really liked the recurrence of Generation X (starting with —••—).

Also, this comic was posted weirdly late (especially for a Friday), hence the lack of a discussion thread.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 589
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby SDK » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:19 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:What is that emoji in the nearest-future generation?

Painting fingernails?
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

dtilque
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:53 am UTC
Location: Nogero

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby dtilque » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:39 pm UTC

jackal wrote:And it was just earlier this week that I proudly claimed the title of “The Oregon Trail Generation”


Then this xkcd is for you.


[It's one of my favorites, even though I'm not sure I ever played that game.]
Whenever visually representing the universe, it's important to include a picture of Saturn!
-- Tom the Dancing Bug

jozwa
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby jozwa » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:15 pm UTC

The founders

That made me realize all these names for generations I've heard people talk about are probably a US-only thing. I'm not (necessarily) a millennial if I was born somewhere else in 1990.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6176
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Jorpho » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:20 pm UTC

jackal wrote:Wow, 2:30 PM Eastern time and no thread for this comic yet? I was looking forward to reading the discussion…
I thought about it, but I started panicking about whether I would get the formatting right. :P

And it was just earlier this week that I proudly claimed the title of “The Oregon Trail Generation” (actually, “Xennial,” but that’s such an ugly word).
I like that one too. I've also heard "Space Jameration", but that does not seem to be gaining traction. In Hungary, they have the "Ducktales Generation".
http://www.looper.com/59115/untold-truth-ducktales/

With the rise of this terminology I might expect the timespans to become shorter and shorter to the point of meaninglessness. But then, people were already referring to "War Babies" long ago, so such narrow distinctions aren't new.
https://www.amazon.ca/War-Babies-Genera ... 0990669807

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5943
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Sprocket » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:21 pm UTC

A lot of things say 1980 is a millennial. I feel pretty solidly millennial. I am definitely not gen x.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby orthogon » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:16 am UTC

According to Apple, we should have stopped at Generation X.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4411
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:20 am UTC

Why?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

ebow
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:16 pm UTC
Location: Chair

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby ebow » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:53 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:
jackal wrote:And it was just earlier this week that I proudly claimed the title of “The Oregon Trail Generation” (actually, “Xennial,” but that’s such an ugly word).
I like that one too. I've also heard "Space Jameration", but that does not seem to be gaining traction. In Hungary, they have the "Ducktales Generation".


As an Oregon Trailer, I've never seen Space Jam, but did watch plenty of Ducktales as a kid (and played plenty of OT--not to be confused with the OTT, which is just too much for me to deal with).

rmsgrey
Posts: 3265
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:31 am UTC

Sprocket wrote:A lot of things say 1980 is a millennial. I feel pretty solidly millennial. I am definitely not gen x.


I think at least part of it for people near the borders is who you were raised with/by - as the eldest in a family of millennials, I also identify as such rather than Gen X.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby keithl » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:25 am UTC

Sigh. I was looking forward to "... to 1865, Spontaneous Generation".

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby orthogon » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:37 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Why?

Sorry, that was a late night post that, in the cold light of day, didn't really work. I was thinking how Apple stopped incrementing the number after OS-X. (Microsoft are also stopping at 10, I heard).
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Morgan Wick
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Morgan Wick » Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:39 pm UTC

I hate how, after the twentieth century's other generations got cool, descriptive names like the Greatest Generation, baby boomers, even Generation X, my generation got the lame, uncreative, you-could-have-given-it-to-anyone-born-in-those-years-regardless-of-historical-context moniker of "millennials", which I refuse to use unironically. What's worse is that it won out because it was marginally more descriptive than "Generation Y" and now "Generation Z" seems to be winning out for the generation after us, even though, again, it doesn't say anything about that generation, it's just lazily continuing the progression from Generation X. I'd much rather have Randall come up with generation labels for us. I mean, what name are they going to give the generation after Z, now that they've reached the end of the alphabet?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:53 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Why?

Sorry, that was a late night post that, in the cold light of day, didn't really work. I was thinking how Apple stopped incrementing the number after OS-X.

Except for the Chinese version, OS-XI, that will now run forever

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Old Bruce » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:30 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Why?

Sorry, that was a late night post that, in the cold light of day, didn't really work. I was thinking how Apple stopped incrementing the number after OS-X.

Except for the Chinese version, OS-XI, that will now run forever

Had brunch with some family members and we didn't talk about this because we were talking about being upset that this doesn't get covered on the news. I'll award you and Occident Internet for the pun.

chrisjwmartin
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:01 am UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby chrisjwmartin » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:32 pm UTC

Morgan Wick wrote:I mean, what name are they going to give the generation after Z, now that they've reached the end of the alphabet?

Generation &.

Mutex
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Mutex » Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:37 pm UTC

They should've started at A really.

dtobias
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:09 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby dtobias » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:57 pm UTC

Hitler was born 20 April 1889, so one of the 1892-1909 generation was not in fact Hitler.

speising
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby speising » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:59 pm UTC

dtobias wrote:Hitler was born 20 April 1889, so one of the 1892-1909 generation was not in fact Hitler.

in fact, no one of those was.

fluffysheap
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby fluffysheap » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:12 am UTC

To be fair, most of the 1874-1891 generation wasn't Hitler either.

I'm more worried about the 2126-2143 generation, which, shortly after the perfection of human cloning and due to a bug in the procedure, will all be Hitler.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby da Doctah » Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:28 am UTC

chrisjwmartin wrote:
Morgan Wick wrote:I mean, what name are they going to give the generation after Z, now that they've reached the end of the alphabet?

Generation &.


The Sue Grafton Dilemma. Resolution found.

fluffysheap
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:53 am UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby fluffysheap » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:32 am UTC

It's always useful to refer to the book which coined the term "Millenials": https://www.amazon.com/dp/0688119123
"Generations" is an interesting work of pseudoscience which, despite its lack of rigor, nevertheless makes predictions about the "future" (but since it's over 25 years old now, it's really making predictions about the present). Some are right, some are not. It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but given enough time, apparently even about the present. The overview of American history as purely a series of social changes is unusual. Not many people know this, but the term "Millenials" was actually coined before Generation X, and as a result they are referred to as "13th Generation" in this book.

And the one that coined the term "Generation X": https://www.amazon.com/dp/0349103313
"Generation X" is a work of fiction which, well, might appeal to you if you happen to be exactly the right age. I guess I'm four or five years too young. Even though I'm an Oregon Trailer, I claim allegiance with Generation X - though few true Gen-Xers have ever died of dysentery.

I hate how, after the twentieth century's other generations got cool, descriptive names like the Greatest Generation, baby boomers, even Generation X, my generation got the lame, uncreative, you-could-have-given-it-to-anyone-born-in-those-years-regardless-of-historical-context moniker of "millennials"

Millenials have a better name than Generation X. Generation X doesn't mean anything - that's why it was given to Generation X. Millenials at least means something, even if it is just a fancy measurement of time. Nobody has the faintest clue what to call the generation after the Millenials, even though they're already in highschool!

The problem is that actual good names can only be given decades after they're needed, once that generation has reached maturity and made their mark on the world. But the media likes talking about the generations when they're children or teenagers. Baby Boomers happened to have a defining event that happened when they were children, and Generation X was already pretty well defined by the time they were teenagers. Earlier generations were already pretty well defined by the time anyone wanted to talk about generations as having any sort of meaning. But Millenials are lucky they didn't get a more descriptive name - or else they'd be called the Snowflake Generation or the Smartphone Generation.

pernishus
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:38 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby pernishus » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:58 pm UTC

Since I know Randall is a fan of House of Leaves, I was wondering if Generation f might be a reference. After reading the Jamestown colony section, I remember Johnny going through a period of replacing s's with f's. Maybe a stretch, but seems like a possibility.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:39 pm UTC

May just be a common root. It's a fairly universal schoolboy joke to fay thingf ufing Efff inftead of Efsef.

Noting that it looks more, to me, like an actual f-with-hook that gets confused with the long-s, due to the full crossbar. The version of the s should not have a full bar, though may have a leftward bar only (if one at all). That may be yet another level of the humour.

(One wonders whether there's additional meaning behind the naming of the 1784-1801 æra, or did he just pluck it out of the æther to continue this section of the formulæ.)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:20 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
chrisjwmartin wrote:
Morgan Wick wrote:I mean, what name are they going to give the generation after Z, now that they've reached the end of the alphabet?

Generation &.

The Sue Grafton Dilemma. Resolution found.

She died before getting to Z, so not much of a dilemma really.

pernishus wrote:Since I know Randall is a fan of House of Leaves, I was wondering if Generation f might be a reference. After reading the Jamestown colony section, I remember Johnny going through a period of replacing s's with f's. Maybe a stretch, but seems like a possibility.
It's much more likely that both are references to orthographical convention of the time.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby orthogon » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:May just be a common root. It's a fairly universal schoolboy joke to fay thingf ufing Efff inftead of Efsef.

For a long time I was staring at this. The "-ay" made me think you were writing in Igpay Atinlay, and from the limited information I know about you, I hope you don't mind me saying that this seemed not at all unlikely.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

pscottdv
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby pscottdv » Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:57 pm UTC

speising wrote:
dtobias wrote:Hitler was born 20 April 1889, so one of the 1892-1909 generation was not in fact Hitler.

in fact, no one of those was.


Hmm. I wonder which one was not Hitler.

User avatar
NumberFourtyThree
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:00 am UTC
Location: Too many to list here, due to a cloning accident.

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby NumberFourtyThree » Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:17 pm UTC

This comic caused me to look up "paperclip machine", and a mention in the Wikipedia article caused me to waste several hours on this browser based game turning the universe into paperclips:

http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/
The world is imperfect because it has to be. If everything were perfectly fair and without problems we would all live the exact same pointless life, with no possible meaning to it.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1990
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Flumble » Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:44 pm UTC

NumberFourtyThree wrote:http://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/

Great, thanks, now my Sunday is gone (and all I got is this lousy wire drone collection). :|

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1962: “Generations”

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:51 pm UTC

It's possible, from the dates, that Randall saw this recently published Youtube video. Although not probable, as I expect he could have worked in some more of the characters. Still, I thought it worth sharing.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheMinim and 25 guests